Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before 

any court except for the purpose of 

establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

TIMOTHY J. BURNS GREGORY F. ZOELLER

Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

GEORGE P. SHERMAN

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

EUGENE STRADER, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 49A02-1201-CR-57

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable William J. Nelson, Judge

Cause No. 49F07-1104-CM-25901 

August 29, 2012

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

VAIDIK, Judge
2

Case Summary

Eugene Strader appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana. Strader contends there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction 

because the State failed to prove that he had constructive possession of the marijuana. 

We find that the State sufficiently proved that Strader had constructive possession of the 

marijuana and therefore affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

On April 13, 2011, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Corey 

Heiny was responding to a call from dispatch when he noticed a blue Ford pickup truck 

parked on the side of the road. The truck had a flat tire and Strader and another man were 

sitting inside. Approximately forty-five minutes later, after completing his assignment 

from dispatch, Officer Heiny again observed the truck. The truck’s windows were rolled 

up although the temperature outside was warm. As Officer Heiny watched, a van pulled 

up alongside the truck. Strader got out of the truck and approached the passenger side of 

the van. After a few minutes, the van drove off and Strader returned to the truck. Then 

the other man in the truck, Lemont Smith, got out of the truck. He walked to a nearby 

house. A Chevrolet Impala pulled up to the house, and Smith walked to the Impala.

At that time, Officer Heiny approached the truck to talk to Strader, who was sitting 

in the driver’s seat. As he walked toward the truck, Officer Heiny noticed the odor of 

burnt marijuana. Officer Heiny asked Strader to step out of the truck. As he spoke to 

Strader, he looked inside the truck and saw a police radio and a marijuana blunt in plain 

view on the passenger’s seat. Officer Heiny then searched the truck and found what 
3

looked like marijuana residue in the truck’s ashtray as well as empty plastic baggies. 

Chemical testing revealed that the residue in the ashtray and the material in the blunt 

were, in fact, marijuana. 

After a bench trial, Strader was convicted of Class A misdemeanor possession of 

marijuana. The trial court sentenced Strader to 365 days in jail with 351 days suspended 

and credit for seven days served. Strader was also ordered to complete forty hours of 

community service.

Strader now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

Strader contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for 

possession of marijuana because the State failed to show that he had constructive 

possession of the marijuana. 

Our standard of review with regard to sufficiency claims is well settled. In 

reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court does not reweigh the evidence 

or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Bond v. State, 925 N.E.2d 773, 781 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2010), reh’g denied, trans. denied. We consider only the evidence most favorable 

to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. Id. We will affirm if the 

evidence and those inferences constitute substantial evidence of probative value to 

support the judgment. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when a reasonable trier of fact 

would not be able to form inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id.

Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana occurs when the defendant 

“knowingly or intentionally possesses (pure or adulterated) marijuana” in an amount less 
4

than thirty grams. Ind. Code § 35-48-4-11. A conviction for possession of contraband 

may rest upon proof of either actual or constructive possession. Washington v. State, 902 

N.E.2d 280, 288 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. Actual possession occurs when a 

person has direct physical control over the substance, Walker v. State, 631 N.E.2d 1, 2 

(Ind. Ct. App. 1994), while constructive possession occurs when the defendant has both 

(1) the intent and (2) the capability to maintain dominion and control over the subject 

contraband. Atwood v. State, 905 N.E.2d 479, 484 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. 

To prove the intent element of constructive possession, the State must demonstrate 

the defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Goliday v. State, 708 

N.E.2d 4, 6 (Ind. 1999). Knowledge may be inferred from either exclusive control over 

the premises where the substance is found, or, if the control is non-exclusive, evidence of 

additional circumstances pointing to knowledge of the presence of the contraband. Id. 

The capability element is met when the State shows the defendant was able to reduce the 

controlled substance to his personal possession. Id.

Strader argues that the State failed to show that he had constructive possession of 

the marijuana because the truck belonged to his girlfriend and because Smith, the other 

man in the truck, claimed ownership of the marijuana and police radio. We disagree.

The evidence adduced at trial shows that Strader had the intent to possess the 

marijuana. He had knowledge of the presence of the contraband in the truck over which 

he had exclusive control because of the “strong odor of marijuana.” Tr. p. 9. The 

obvious smell emanating from the truck, combined with the location of the contraband on 

the passenger seat, make it clear that Strader knew that the marijuana was in the truck. 
5

Strader also had the capability to maintain dominion and control over the marijuana. The 

contraband was within arm’s reach on the passenger seat. Strader was also the only 

individual in the truck—notably, Smith was not in the truck when Officer Heiny 

approached and asked Strader to get out of the truck. 

Despite Strader’s arguments that he did not make incriminating statements, he did 

not attempt to flee the scene or make furtive movements, the truck was not his, and Smith 

claimed ownership of the contraband, we conclude that the State has sufficiently met its 

burden in proving that Strader knowingly possessed the marijuana in the truck.

This evidence is sufficient to support Strader’s conviction for possession of 

marijuana. We therefore affirm the trial court.

Affirmed.

MATHIAS, J., and BARNES, J., concur.